D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ. All these spe cial appeals being similar in nature involv ing similar facts and points of law, were heard together with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties They are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The controversy raised in these cases relates to the date from which the appellants will be given the benefit of parity of pay with regular tube-well operators. Since we are not concerned very much with the merit of the claim of the appellants in the writ petition, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts of the case. For the purpose of appreciation of the controversy, it would be sufficient to state the following facts: 3. The appellants in all the cases were part-time tube-well operators of the State Government in the Irrigation Depart ment. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 20-2-1992 by which their nomencla ture was changed from part-time tube-well operators to tube-well assistants and honoraria of Rs. 550 per month was fixed in lieu of pay, they filed the writ petitions seeking quashing of the said notification and for a direction to the opposite-parties to pay them salary in scale of pay which is admissible and is being paid to regularly appointed full-time lube-well operators. A large number of writ petitions involving similar facts and seeking similar relief were filed in this Court. The first batch of writ petition No. 3558 of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. v. State of U. P. , & Ors. and 49 other cases were disposed of by Brijesh Kumar, J. by the judgment-rendered on 18-5-1994. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "in the result, I allow all the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992 and quash the Notification dated 20-2-1992 (as con tained in Annexure-1 to Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992) by which nomenclature of the petitioners has been changed to that of tube-well assistants and honoraria of Rs. 550 per month has been fixed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i. e. in the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed tube-well operators are being paid. Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992 filed by the State, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. & Ors. v. Makrand Singh & Ors. , is dismissed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i. e. in the same scale of pay in which other regularly appointed tube-well operators are being paid. Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992 filed by the State, Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U. P. & Ors. v. Makrand Singh & Ors. , is dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. " 4. It is relevant to note here that in the judgment the learned Judge held inter alia (a) that the alleged freedom of taking up any job or profession is a mere farce and a device adopted to deprive the petitioners of their lawful emoluments, by calling them as part-time tube-well operators and now as tube-well assistants, (b) that the circumstances stated in the judgment cer tainly cast a shadow of doubt on the bona fides in issuing the Notification dated February 20, 1992; (c) that there seems to be substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the inten tion for changing the nomenclature of part-time tube-well operators to that of tube-well assistants is only with a view to put them in the category of unskilled labour so that they may not claim mini mum wages of skilled labour in which category tube-well operators fall; (d) that the tube-well operators and erstwhile part-time tube- well operators, now called as tube-well assistants, perform same na ture of duties; though it is provided that duty hours of the tube-well assistants are from 9. 30 a. m. to 12 noon, but it is only on paper; in fact they have to work whenever electricity is available during any time of the day and it has also been found that they work much more than two and a half hours, the petitioners have placed sup porting materials to indicate that they work for more than two and a half hours; (e) that the plea that it is uneconomical to pay them full wages is not a valid ground and in favour of some of the petitioners, orders passed for payment of wages to them under the Minimum Wages Act have been upheld by the High Court; and (f) that it is highly improper to change the nomenclature of the part-time tube-well operators to that of tube-well assistants without there being any one to whom they could render the assistance and there being no change in the nature of their work, it was not done with bona fide inten tion. 5. It is also relevant to state here that before the aforementioned judgment was rendered, the Labour Court, on reference of the dispute raised at the instance of some-part-time tube-well operators, had passed an award that they were entitled to the same pay/wages as the tube-well operators. 6. The State challenged the aforementioned judgment by filing special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 27-3-1995. Yet, another attempt by the opposite-parties for review of the order was rejected by the Supreme Court on 18-10-1995. 7. The writ petitions from which these special appeals arise were filed in 1995 after the judgment in Suresh Chandra Tewari s case was rendered. They were dis posed of in batches on different dates be tween April and December, 1996 by S. H. A. Raza, J. Relying on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. v. State of U. P & Ors. , all the writ petitions were al lowed. They were dis posed of in batches on different dates be tween April and December, 1996 by S. H. A. Raza, J. Relying on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. v. State of U. P & Ors. , all the writ petitions were al lowed. The material portion of the judg ment which is relevant for the purpose of the present controversy is quoted below: "in view of the aforesaid situation, I, after hearing the Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Chief Standing Counsel, am of the view that the petitioners of this writ petition are also entitled to the benefits which accrued to the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992 and similar other writ petitions, with prospective effect. In view of the aforesaid situation the writ petition is allowed. The notification dated 20-2-92 as contained in Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition by which the nomenclature of the petitioners from part-time tube-well operators to that of tube-well assistants and an honoraria of Rs. 550 per month only was fixed is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to pay all the petitioners the same emoluments i. e. the regularly appointed tube-well operators are being paid, with prospective effect, for the reason that if the regular scale of pay would be given from retrospective effect, undue burden would be caused on the public exchequer. How ever, it is made clear, that if in view of the orders of this Court regular pay scale has been given to any such tube-well operators with the retrospect five effect, the difference of the amount would not be recovered from such persons. " 8. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction/order granting the benefit of parity of pay only prospectively. Their case is that they are entitled to the benefit from the date of their judgment or atleast from 18-5-1994, the date of the judgment in Suresh Chandra Tewaris case. Learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated this position in their argument. The learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the learned single Judge has specifically laid down that the benefit of parity of pay will be available to the appellants only prospectively, i. e. , from the date of the judgment in the case giving cogent reasons in support of his decision. The learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the learned single Judge has specifically laid down that the benefit of parity of pay will be available to the appellants only prospectively, i. e. , from the date of the judgment in the case giving cogent reasons in support of his decision. Therefore, the judgment/order does not call for any interference. 9. On the factual backdrop of the case and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties as noted above, the question that arises for determination is, which is the date from which the petitioners can reasonably be said to be entitled to the benefit of parity of pay with the regular tube-well operators of the department? 10. The only reason stated in the im pugned judgment for not giving the appel lants regular scale of pay with retrospec tive effect is that undue burden would be cost on the public exchequer. This, in our view, is not a sound reason to deprive the employees of their legitimate dues. Though the appellants claim parity of pay with regular whole-time tube-well operators from the date of their appoint ments, alternatively they submit mat the relief should be given to them at least from the date of the judgment in Suresh Chandra Tewaris case, Le. 18-5-1994. In our considered view the submission is reasonable and there is no good reason why the appellants should not be granted the benefit of parity of scale from 18- 4-1994. When a section of employees similarly placed as the appellants were granted parity of scale of pay by order of this Court, the State Government, as an ideal employer, should have extended the benefit to all similarly placed employees. Since it failed to do so, the appellants were compelled to file writ petitions seeking simitar relief as in the disposed of case. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , AIR 1993 SC 81 , considering a similar question ruled as follows: "it was contended by the learned Counsel for the University that such an order will throw a heavy financial burden on the University. That may be so but that is no ground to deny to the employees what is due to them in law. , AIR 1993 SC 81 , considering a similar question ruled as follows: "it was contended by the learned Counsel for the University that such an order will throw a heavy financial burden on the University. That may be so but that is no ground to deny to the employees what is due to them in law. In fact the employees can make a grievance that what was due to them had been illegally withheld and hence the University should be directed to pay the difference with interest. However, we would leave it to the authorities to work out a scheme with sufficient incentives e. g. depositing the ar rears (difference) in Provident Fund or the like and giving an option to the employees to avail of that benefit if they so desire. That should however, be done not later than three months. We also direct the authorities to calculate the dif ference payable to the employees within four months from today and pay the same to the employees, under a scheme, if any, as per employees option, or if no scheme is prepared, in cash. The amount to be paid by way of dif ference in salary will be spread over year wise for income-tax purposes. " 12. Applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, we allow the appeals in part and declare that the appellants are entitled to the parity of pay which has been granted by the learned Single Judge from the dale of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992, Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. and we further direct the respondents to calculate the amounts payable to the appellants within four months from today and pay the same to them, under a scheme, if any, or if no scheme is prepared, in cash. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .